You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Not buying it, Sim. You have a long history of contradicting yourself in this forum.
Here's more of your restrictive nonsense:

Do you enjoy making up shit about people, or what?

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence would know better than to make sweeping claims about so many different types of people like you do.
I'm going to start calling you: Archie-fucking-Bunker.

ROFL!!!

But to finally respond to the original post - I pretty much think I'm a P in every regard: I'm clean but messy, I balk at restrictive schedules, I'm annoyed by corporate environments, my life as a whole has not had a step-by-step cohesive plan, I live for unplanned days, and sometimes go off on larks.

That being said, I still like to get my homework done ahead of time so I don't have to worry about it. I like to get an idea of what I'll write about weeks and weeks before I actually sit down and write the paper, trying to do it all at once is truely stressful. I don't really care for random social invites either, I honestly like to plan when I'm going to hang out with someone, unless they're a person I really enjoy being around or I'm truly bored. I feel invaded if someone just knocks on my door and drags me out somewhere unless I'm specifically in the mood to do something like that. I've heard that this last sentence is actually a common INFJ trait.

I know I act J when I'm stressed, but then again in MBTI NFP under stress can go all STJ on your ass.

FPs have Fi strength with a weaker use of Te. Therefore we probably do apply our ethics with a certain amount of logic to the actual external world.

To some degree, but remember that Te ignores internal logical consistency in favor of external expediency. That's the basis of my assertion that Ti works best with impersonal logical analysis in a vacuum--seriously, talk to solitarywalker or jennifer or ptgatsby (all Ti doms) for like 3 seconds and you'll see why.

Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise

We aren't masters of logic - but honestly I ascribe that to NTJs more than anyone. We aren't complete failures at it, either. I did quite well when I studied pure logic in my college maths. That doesn't mean that I think I have extremely wonderfully strong logic, because I don't, but we're not as deficient at it as you would like to imply.

No, NTJs are masters of efficiency and ingenuity in discovering new applications. They're often averse to exploring abstract theory when they can't see any external application, so they're not as willing to explore every single possibility "just to see what happens" the way NTPs will. Te views logic as a means to an end, not an end state itself. Te's conception of logic is dependent upon external validation, so it's not operating on a purely logical basis. To Te, what is logical is dependent upon the external world; you can see a similar relationship between Fi and Fe. I would describe Fi users as more in touch with universal ethics as their own end, whereas Fe users are more in touch with localized ethics in terms of what works in concert with others to reach toward common goals.

NTPs tend to dominate the domain of pure theoretical logic with no regard toward external application. That's just what Ti does.

Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise

How do you describe an NFP with a degree in higher maths or science? They don't have a good grasp of logic? O rly?

The problem isn't inability to understand logical principles; it's inability to apply them at the right time when Fi is contradicting them.

I could take a course on emotional intelligence and probably ace the test by telling them what they want to hear. I can follow your reasoning when I want to; I just don't think it's appropriate in nearly as many situations as you try to apply it to. (I expect your criticism of NTPs is very similar.)

If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

To some degree, but remember that Te ignores internal logical consistency in favor of external expediency. That's the basis of my assertion that Ti works best with impersonal logical analysis in a vacuum--seriously, talk to solitarywalker for like 3 seconds and you'll see why.

No, NTJs are masters of efficiency and ingenuity in discovering new applications. Te views logic as a means to an end, not an end state itself. Te's conception of logic is dependent upon external validation, so it's not operating on a purely logical basis. To Te, what is logical is dependent upon the external world; you can see a similar relationship between Fi and Fe. I would describe Fi users as more in touch with universal ethics as their own end, whereas Fe users are more in touch with localized ethics in terms of what works in concert with others to reach toward common goals.

NTPs tend to dominate the domain of pure theoretical logic with no regard toward external application. That's just what Ti does.

The problem isn't inability to understand logical principles; it's inability to apply them at the right time when Fi is contradicting them.

I could take a course on emotional intelligence and probably ace the test by telling them what they want to hear. I can follow your reasoning when I want to; I just don't think it's appropriate in nearly as many situations as you try to apply it to.

You don't know how many situations I try to apply it to, do you? I don't have to talk to solitary walker - I have a very good friend who is an INTP and I swear he is the smartest person I know. He isn't perfect, but good lord he's intelligent...and not just logical intelligence, he has ethical intelligence too, and sees the objective practicality in ethics which is completely logical.
He and I could make the exact same argument, it's just that the particular angle he would work on that argument might make his position more appealing to someone like yourself.

Hmmm...you can't compare a logic class with an emotional intelligence test. They're two very different spheres. There's no "telling someone what they want to hear" in a logic class: there are clear answers, right or wrong.

You clearly lack emotional intelligence, it's frankly self-evident, but you have this tendency to disregard emotional intelligence just because it's not your personal strength. I think that's just immaturity. By the same token, it would be foolish for me to disregard logic because it isn't my primary strength.

That's why I try my best to use it - and it seems as though you're bashing Fi users for trying to sharpen their logic. You do go on and on about Fi an awful lot. I've joked about it in the past, but NO really, you do go on about Fi. It's obviously a function that you hate, as well as Te.

That's why I try my best to use it - and it seems as though you're bashing Fi users for trying to sharpen their logic. You do go on and on about Fi an awful lot. I've joked about it in the past, but NO really, you do go on about Fi. It's obviously a function that you hate, as well as Te.

That's because Fi users are the ones who most consistently try to defend themselves against my critiques...which, I would argue, is most often a function of failure to take criticism impersonally.

I hate things about all the functions; Fi just seems to cause the most overt disagreements with me here on this forum.

If you want to hear my critiques of the other functional attitudes, though, I'll be glad to oblige.

If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

Ok, this morning my son wouldnt say "I love you" to someone when he was mad. I tried to talk to him and he would grunt. He then asked for me to play a song and I told him I would only play it if he agreed to what I said. He finally agreed, and I asked him to repeat it and he grunted. I told him I would not play it until he repeated what I said. A minute later he asked me again what I had said because he wasnt listening so he could repeat it.

He believed he was right in his feeling so he wasnt gonna say "I love you" because he was mad and he wasnt gonna listen to anyone(block external perception) because he was validate in his mad feeling. I simply let him know that its alright to be mad and still let someone know you love them and thats what I made him repeat. But its his stubborness driven by his feelings that caused him to block any external perception. He basically shut out Ne and Te and got stuck in Si and Fi.

I'm reading this example in conjunction with your OP..

Does this mean your son is an unhealthy ESTJ who is acting like his INFP counterpart? Or are you saying he's an ENFJ who is in his INFP shadow? Please clarify, because I admit your point still kind of eludes me.

Or is your son an ISTJ who is displaying his Fi tertiary and therefore acting like an IxFP?

Does this mean your son is an unhealthy ESTJ who is acting like his INFP counterpart? Or are you saying he's an ENFJ who is in his INFP shadow? Please clarify, because I admit your point still kind of eludes me.

Or is your son an ISTJ who is displaying his Fi tertiary and therefore acting like an IxFP?

Not everybody uses the term "shadow" the same way, but I believe ENFJ's shadow would be ESTJ, would it not?

ENFJ functions: Fe Ni Se Ti
ESTJ functions: Te Si Ne Fi

Each is the shadow of its other form in the same functional position.

If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

Ok, this morning my son wouldnt say "I love you" to someone when he was mad. I tried to talk to him and he would grunt. He then asked for me to play a song and I told him I would only play it if he agreed to what I said. He finally agreed, and I asked him to repeat it and he grunted. I told him I would not play it until he repeated what I said. A minute later he asked me again what I had said because he wasnt listening so he could repeat it.

He believed he was right in his feeling so he wasnt gonna say "I love you" because he was mad and he wasnt gonna listen to anyone(block external perception) because he was validate in his mad feeling. I simply let him know that its alright to be mad and still let someone know you love them and thats what I made him repeat. But its his stubborness driven by his feelings that caused him to block any external perception. He basically shut out Ne and Te and got stuck in Si and Fi.

So...what? You MADE your son tell someone that he loved him when he was angry? How does that make him unhealthy? I mean, honestly, that seems like pushing Fe on someone, and has nothing to do with Ne or Te.